Age-Appropriate Design Code Passes California Legislature
Update: On Sep 15, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2273, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. The law will apply to businesses that provide online services, products, or features likely to be accessed by children and broadly requires businesses to implement their strongest privacy settings by default for young users up to the age of […]
FPF Addresses ‘Opt-Out Preference Signals’ in Comments on California Draft Privacy Regulations
Yesterday, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) filed comments with the California Privacy Protection Agency regarding the Agency’s initial set of draft regulations to implement the California Privacy Rights Act amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act. FPF’s comments are directed towards ensuring that both individuals and businesses have clarity for the implementation and exercise […]
ADPPA Would Surpass California’s Laws, but Improvements Remain
The American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) was passed through the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 20, a proposal which experts and advocates agree is long overdue. However, objections from California leaders may threaten the bill’s passage. Stacey Gray, the FPF’s Director of Legislative Research & Analysis, argues otherwise in a new […]
California Age-Appropriate Design Code Aims to Address Growing Concern About Children’s Online Privacy and Safety
Authors: Chloe Altieri, Kewa Jiang Kewa Jiang, CIPP/US, is a 2021 graduate of USC Gould School of Law and a Student Contractor with FPF’s Youth and Education Privacy team. On May 26, 2022, AB-2273, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (ADCA) unanimously passed the California Assembly and moved to the Senate for consideration. California Assembly […]
FPF Weighs in on Automated Decisionmaking, Purpose Limitation, and Global Opt-Outs for California Stakeholder Sessions
This week, Future of Privacy Forum policy experts provided testimony in California public Stakeholder Sessions to provide independent policy recommendations for the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). The Agency heard from a variety of speakers and members of the public, on a broad range of issues relevant to forthcoming rulemaking on the California Privacy Rights […]
California’s SB 980 Would Codify Strong Protections for Genetic Data
Author: John Verdi (Vice President of Policy) This week, SB 980 (the “Genetic Information Privacy Act”) passed the California State Assembly and State Senate, with near unanimous support (54-10 and 39-0). If signed by the Governor before the Sept. 30 deadline, the law would become the first comprehensive genetic privacy law in the United States, […]
California SB 980 Would Codify Many of FPF’s Best Practices for Consumer Genetic Testing Services, but Key Differences Remain
Authors: John Verdi (Vice President of Policy) and Katelyn Ringrose (Christopher Wolf Diversity Law Fellow) In July 2018, the Future of Privacy Forum released Privacy Best Practices for Consumer Genetic Testing Services. FPF developed the Best Practices following consultation with technical experts, regulators, leading consumer genetic and personal genomic testing companies, and civil society. The […]
California Privacy Legislation: A Timeline of Key Events
Authors: Katelyn Ringrose (Christopher Wolf Diversity Law Fellow) and Jeremy Greenberg (Policy Counsel) ——- Today, the California Attorney General will begin enforcing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The California AG’s office may bring enforcement actions and seek penalties for violations of core provisions of the CCPA. The AG’s request for expedited review of regulations […]
FPF Comments on CA Public Utilities Commission Autonomous Vehicle Passenger Service Proceeding
Last week, the Future of Privacy Forum filed written comments in response to the California Public Utilities Commission’s proposed decision authorizing pilot programs for passenger service in Autonomous Vehicles. The CPUC is a consumer protection agency that oversees, among other topics, provision of passenger service in the state. The proposed decision called for a number of criteria to be met by companies seeking to operate AV passenger service, including reporting of communications between passengers and remote operators of driverless AVs, as well as aggregated operations data.